What is environmentalism, really?

[myrkul]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

[FirstAscent]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

Arguing silly semantics again because you don't have a leg to stand on? Funny.

I'm attacking your posts, as you're linking to articles written by Willie Soon, libertarian anti-science crackpot, speaker for libertarian think tanks, funded by Big Oil, promoted by libertarian think tanks (his only real venue).

I'll just post what I said in that other thread in June, because it sums up your actions and the analysis of your "science" so well. Here's what I wrote back in June:

By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?

Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else.

Whose sock puppet am I?

I don't know, but Fritz Vahrenholt (TECSHARE's link) is a chemist, affiliated with energy companies, and sat on the board of Shell. He has never published a paper on climate or climatology in a peer reviewed journal.

I have said over and over: all claims made by these charlatans can be refuted, and they can be tied to Big Oil or other organizations of ill repute, such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, etc. Think tanks are what they call themselves, and what they really are are nothing but fronts for conservative thinking masquerading as organizations which claim to be experts on climate.

It pretty much began with Frederick Seitz and his claims that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer, when he was on the payroll of RJ Reynolds, and then later, when he went on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, where he then made claims about climate change. These windbags have continued spouting their fictions ever since.

Individuals such as TECSHARE find what they believe to be these earth shattering news items, and gleefully post them as though they were real science. Pretty sad.

The sooner you tuck your tail between your legs and extricate yourself from this, the better you'll look.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Hey guys,

This thread is about environmentalism, and that certainly includes climate change. However, as I've pointed out in an earlier post, the bulk of environmentalism is scientific study and proactive conservation (as opposed to turning in plastic bottles behind the supermarket), and as such, denying anthropogenic climate change with material sourced from the latest libertarian websites really doesn't qualify as climate science, and by extension, doesn't qualify as science in any respectable way.

If you guys truly want to debate this issue, feel free to start a thread about it. Before doing so, I would earnestly suggest both of you get up to speed on the following topics so we have a baseline to start with:

- Climate change induced precipitation patterns and how it will affect agriculture
- Milankovitch cycles and ice age patterns
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- The Oregon Petition, Frederick Seitz, and various libertarian documents masquerading as science

For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to real science. Thanks.

I, for one, do not deny that the climate is changing.  Nor do I deny that the trend is towards a warmer climate.  I won't even contest that human activity contributes in that general direction.  What I will deny, because I actually understand the sciences involved and how complex they are, is that we actually understand enough about the biosphere or the global climate to make the claims that some people will do.  I most certainly oppose the efforts to use the force of governments to compel people to alter their behavior under the claims that "the science is settled".  The science is not only not settled, the best & brightest openly admit that they don't really understand it all well enough to make a solid determination.  It's the politically minded hacks that compare climate change skeptics to holocaust deniers.  And even if the science were actually settled, there is very little evidence that we could actually slow that warming trend to any significant degree without killing off a large percentage of the population of the planet either by starvation or warfare.  

And all that before we even consider the possibility that a moderate rate of change (which is what we have actually been getting despite decades of climate change histeria, yes I'm old enough to remember the early 80's and the claims that Mexico and some of the Southernmost US states would actually be inhabitable by now) might actually be a net positive for humanity at large, even if it does prove to be a net burden on people who live in sub-tropical coastal regions.  There are massive tracts of arable land that could be opened up to productive agriculture and human settlement in the northern-most latitudes, predominately in Canada, Greenland & Russia.  See, there is one thing about global warming predictions that are not often talked about by those who warn against climate changes; and that is that the rising temp trends are not going to be evenly distributed across the latitudes.  Because of the way that greenhouse gases work (i.e. shortwave infrared light from the sun passes through mostly unattenuated to strike the Earth's surface, while longer wave IR tends to be 'refracted' back towards the Earth like shortwave radio waves are reflected by the E-level of the ionosphere, thus functioning like one of those mylar emergency blankets) the retained heat tends towards spreading across great distances.  So while the equater does get most of the sunlight and would warm somewhat, higher latitudes would tend to receive more IR heat from warmer latitutes than they radiate back.  Thus, most of the warming is going to occur in regions where a slightly warmer climate could make the difference between only growing winter wheat, or growing corn instead.  The climate is always, always changing.  As recently as 400 years ago there was still an inland sea in the Western US states, where the salt flats are today, that contributed to a wetter climate in that region than exists today.  Things change and populations migrate.  There is no reason to expect that it will be different after the Industrial Revolution, in that regard, than it was prior.

Also, keep in mind that the Earth is a closed system, and any externally gained carbon is less than trivial even over millinia.  At some point in Earth's history, it was a molten ball of rock surrounded by a mixed gas atmostphere.  There were no trees, and oxygen is never found free under such conditions unless all of the available carbon was already consumed.  So, at one point in Earth's history, all of the carbon (or nearly all) that we worry today about being released into the atmostphere was actually in that old Earth atmostphere.  So the idea that there is some point at which the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere starts a positive feedback loop within this closed system to destroy life on Earth is both rediculous and provablely false on that data point alone.  For if it were true, how in the hell could live ever have evolved to start with?  I'm not saying that humans  are going to want to live that way but we are little more than a minor infection to the Earth's biosphere.

EDIT: I got the short & long wave IR's reversed in the above description, but other than that it is correct.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul,

I'll tell you what is so hilarious. I never clicked on your link when I raised my first objection to your post. I confidently stated my position, predicting with 100 percent accuracy what I would find.

I'm laughing because when I finally checked out your link after your attempted defense of it and googled the author, I got exactly what I predicted, matching nearly word for word what I surmised.

[myrkul]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

Arguing silly semantics again because you don't have a leg to stand on? Funny.

I'm attacking your posts, as you're linking to articles written by Willie Soon

Wait, now you've got the author wrong. The article was written by Rick C. Hodgin. It says it right under the title. What is your problem tonight? You can't seem to keep anything straight.

[FirstAscent]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was the website you were attacking, not the researcher.

Arguing silly semantics again because you don't have a leg to stand on? Funny.

I'm attacking your posts, as you're linking to articles written by Willie Soon

Wait, now you've got the author wrong. The article was written by Rick C. Hodgin. It says it right under the title. What is your problem tonight? You can't seem to keep anything straight.

Digging your hole even deeper in an effort to save face? Nobody's buying it. Nobody gives a crap about Mr. Hodgin.

Note to everyone: here's the article myrkul linked to. Decide for yourself whether Mr. Hodgin or Willie Soon's work is what the article is about: http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/42006-harvard-astrophysicist-sunspot-activity-correlates-to-global-climate

Myrkul, run along. At least TheBitcoinChemist can put together something a little more sincere and thoughful.

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

[nimda]

I must advise you that Ad-Hominem and condescension are tools I rarely see used successfully, and they never work for an educated audience.

[myrkul]

Myrkul, run along. At least TheBitcoinChemist can put together something a little more sincere and thoughful.

Aww, But you're so much fun to fuck with!

FWIW, I agree with TheBitcoinChemist. Global Warming, anthropogenic or not, is no big thing. Earth has been significantly warmer, even within human history, than it is now. Life will carry on. New York may not, but Life will.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

I wasn't referring to the migration of all species, I was referring to the migrations of human populations.  Once upon a time, the middle east was a cooler & wetter climate, and supported a much larger population than it does today.  It supports what it has today because of the ability to import food in trade for oil.  Without that, those populations will fade away in one manner or another.  The same is true for cities in the US such as Los Vegas or Reno.  The region cannot support the population that resides there, and without modern industry (with oil as a major industrial input) society would be unable to continue to move food grown in the plains states to those western cities.  For that matter, the plains states are plains because they were too dry to support natural tree growth, so even much of the water used there to grow crops wouldn't be possible without machines capable of drawing water from deep aquifiers and pumping liquid fertilizers hundreds of miles through pipelines.  Our greatest near term problem isn't climate change (particularly if it is actually caused by CO2) because our modern world runs on fuel with a diminishing return-on-energy investment.  Although there remains much oil in this world, the "low hanging fruit" of easily removed oil is almost depleted.  We depend upon ever more technically complex methods of extraction just to maintain the system as is.  By definition, that which is unsustainable will not continue indefinately.  When the (energy) costs of removing more oil out of the ground exceeds that which the oil can provide, no more will be removed and the great CO2 threat ceases to continue to be a threat.

I don't know when 'peak oil' really becomes a bigger threat, but I know that it must; eventually.  At least the climate change fanatics can rejoice that the resulting resource wars and population die-offs due to starvation will finally reduce the impact of humanity on the environment.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I must advise you that Ad-Hominem and condescension are tools I rarely see used successfully, and they never work for an educated audience.

I'm confused, so I going to ask this...

Which one of them are you talking too?  Or are you talking to both?

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

I wasn't referring to the migration of all species, I was referring to the migrations of human populations.  Once upon a time, the middle east was a cooler & wetter climate, and supported a much larger population than it does today.  It supports what it has today because of the ability to import food in trade for oil.  Without that, those populations will fade away in one manner or another.  The same is true for cities in the US such as Los Vegas or Reno.  The region cannot support the population that resides there, and without modern industry (with oil as a major industrial input) society would be unable to continue to move food grown in the plains states to those western cities.  For that matter, the plains states are plains because they were too dry to support natural tree growth, so even much of the water used there to grow crops wouldn't be possible without machines capable of drawing water from deep aquifiers and pumping liquid fertilizers hundreds of miles through pipelines.  Our greatest near term problem isn't climate change (particularly if it is actually caused by CO2) because our modern world runs on fuel with a diminishing return-on-energy investment.  Although there remains much oil in this world, the "low hanging fruit" of easily removed oil is almost depleted.  We depend upon ever more technically complex methods of extraction just to maintain the system as is.  By definition, that which is unsustainable will not continue indefinately.  When the (energy) costs of removing more oil out of the ground exceeds that which the oil can provide, no more will be removed and the great CO2 threat ceases to continue to be a threat.

I don't know when 'peak oil' really becomes a bigger threat, but I know that it must; eventually.  At least the climate change fanatics can rejoice that the resulting resource wars and population die-offs due to starvation will finally reduce the impact of humanity on the environment.

This is a great post, because it's true!

But regarding species migration, species are being forced to migrate northward (in the northern hemisphere) at a rate that is not sustainable and far exceeds their ability to adapt. They will hit barriers (mountains, cities, bodies of water) and will not be able to migrate further. They thus become extinct. This reduces biodiversity, and most importantly for the discussion here, deplete the ecosystems their ability to provide ecosystem services, one of which is pollination. In short, everything goes to hell. By the time the northern latitudes become temperate for agriculture, so much bad stuff has happened that it is decidedly not a good thing. Furthermore, precipitation patterns will change in an unpredictable way.

[myrkul]

In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

[FirstAscent]

In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

Everyone knows what will happen long term. The point is not to throw away what we have near term. It's such a ridiculous argument to say that long term everything will be fine.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Thank you for your post. However, there are some serious issues with it, and I can't give it the attention it deserves right now. But I will address it soon, I can assure you. As a preview, one of the serious issues with your statement is related to the inability for habitat relocation to occur due to barriers as species migrate northward. The consequences are grave, and it will affect the viability of some of the positives you see in global warming.

I wasn't referring to the migration of all species, I was referring to the migrations of human populations.  Once upon a time, the middle east was a cooler & wetter climate, and supported a much larger population than it does today.  It supports what it has today because of the ability to import food in trade for oil.  Without that, those populations will fade away in one manner or another.  The same is true for cities in the US such as Los Vegas or Reno.  The region cannot support the population that resides there, and without modern industry (with oil as a major industrial input) society would be unable to continue to move food grown in the plains states to those western cities.  For that matter, the plains states are plains because they were too dry to support natural tree growth, so even much of the water used there to grow crops wouldn't be possible without machines capable of drawing water from deep aquifiers and pumping liquid fertilizers hundreds of miles through pipelines.  Our greatest near term problem isn't climate change (particularly if it is actually caused by CO2) because our modern world runs on fuel with a diminishing return-on-energy investment.  Although there remains much oil in this world, the "low hanging fruit" of easily removed oil is almost depleted.  We depend upon ever more technically complex methods of extraction just to maintain the system as is.  By definition, that which is unsustainable will not continue indefinately.  When the (energy) costs of removing more oil out of the ground exceeds that which the oil can provide, no more will be removed and the great CO2 threat ceases to continue to be a threat.

I don't know when 'peak oil' really becomes a bigger threat, but I know that it must; eventually.  At least the climate change fanatics can rejoice that the resulting resource wars and population die-offs due to starvation will finally reduce the impact of humanity on the environment.

This is a great post, because it's true!

But regarding species migration, species are being forced to migrate northward (in the northern hemisphere) at a rate that is not sustainable and far exceeds their ability to adapt. They will hit barriers (mountains, cities, bodies of water) and will not be able to migrate further. They thus become extinct.

Only if humanity choses to do nothing.  I find this rather unlikely.  We already capture and move wolves for lesser reasons.  How difficult would it be for us to introduce species to the northern side of a mountain range?

This reduces biodiversity, and most importantly for the discussion here, deplete the ecosystems their ability to provide ecosystem services, one of which is pollination. In short, everything goes to hell.

That is an unsupportable assumption.  There is literally no evidence to suggest that any species cannot migrate fast enough to outpace global warming.

By the time the northern latitudes become temperate for agriculture, so much bad stuff has happened that it is decidedly not a good thing.

Again, you assume.  I shall again mention that tree roots have been found on islands north of the Canadian tundra under several feet of permafrost.  I have thousands of years of cliamte history to suggest that nature adapts quite effecively.  I doubt that you can find a single data point that says otherwise, unless you are going to claim that the islanders who lived on Easter Island to be part of nature.

Furthermore, precipitation patterns will change in an unpredictable way.

So what?

[myrkul]

In short, everything goes to hell.

In the short term. Long term, unfilled niches will be filled, the world will adapt. If it does so without, or with far fewer, humans, so be it. Though man comes and goes, Earth Abides.

Everyone knows what will happen long term. The point is not to throw away what we have near term. It's such a ridiculous argument to say that long term everything will be fine.

Not at all. Environmentalists claim to care about the Earth. That's a load of bull, and I'm just showing that fact. If you only cared about the Earth, you wouldn't be worried. It's going to take a lot more than a few degrees one way or the other to sterilize this ball of rock we live on. What you're worried about is the status quo. Shit changes. That is the only constant. Deal with it.

[FirstAscent]

The last two posts are beginning to show the limits to the depth of your investigations into the environment. No more for now.

TheBitcoinChemist: you need to learn more about species, extinction events, and biodiversity. In your last post, you definitely showed a limit to your understanding. I can recommend some books for you later. Oh, and as for habitat relocation, it's not about outrunning - it's about hitting insurmountable barriers while moving. On a mildly related note, are you familiar with The Great Amphibian Dying?

Myrkul: Anyone can brush aside Global Warming with a statement such as the one you just made. It's rather absurd though, and not worth discussing.

[myrkul]

Myrkul: Anyone can brush aside Global Warming with a statement such as the one you just made. It's rather absurd though, and not worth discussing.

translation: "You're absolutely right, but I prefer my illusions, thank you."

Very well, I will leave you to your illusions, carry on.

[RodeoX]

This thread is what I'm talking about. Powerful energy interests have joined the "debate" for their own profit. I can't understand why people would listen to the likes of paid oil industry shills and loudmouth idiots like Rush, while ignoring real scientists who actually study this stuff.   Why do you think the energy companies pay them? Because they want to build a better future? Please, they never look past the next fiscal quarter?

Real scientists are paid to find the truth. What that truth may be is not important, science is the process. But, for enough money I could find you a "scientist" who believes smoking is good for you.

[FirstAscent]

TheBitcoinChemist,

Please share with me exactly where you have received your information on climate change. Because while it appears that you do have some understanding of climate science and its effects, there are certain distinct gaps in your knowledge, and a lot of it sounds like it came right out of a libertarian playbook, which naturally raises suspicions.

If you could share specific books you've read, or specific websites in which you collect information from, I would appreciate it.